Renovations for a flat - does LL need consent of co-freeholder

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Renovations for a flat - does LL need consent of co-freeholder

    Dear All,

    In the situation where there are just two flats (one up / one down) with a 50/50 shared freehold, is the 'landlord' the ltd company? If so, and one leaseholder (share freeholder and co-director in ltd company) wants to make improvements to their flat (change bathroom etc) which includes plumbing and so on, must this LL ask for permission from the landlord (of which he is 50%)? If so, can the other 50% shared freeholder / landlord veto? If not, is there any point in going through those motions?

    Sorry, but I have a downstairs occupier making complaints because I am changing the bathroom, kitchen and laminate flooring (all within usual working hours). Of course I made no such complaints when the previous owner of downstairs was making the place nice to sell (which downstairs occupier now enjoys). I just want to press on and want to make sure I can without any real fear.

    #2
    If there is a limited company, rather than simply tenants in common, you will need to consult the company's articles of association, and the lease. If the lease says you need permission, you need to be able to win a vote, either as director or as member/shareholder.

    However, unless the lease forbids alterations, there is an implied "not to be unreasonably refused", if the change adds value to the reversion.

    Generally, though the situation is messy, as assuming default voting rules, although you might not be able to get permission the company may also not be able to authorise legal action against you.

    Failing to go through the motions will just antagonise the other leaseholder.

    Remember you must declare neighbour disputes when you come to sell, so you must balance the value of your improvement against the impact of a declared dispute.

    Comment


      #3
      leaseholder64,

      Spot on, very well put.

      Comment

      Latest Activity

      Collapse

      • Increased service charge when let/unoccupied
        by eshroom
        My mum has had her flat let out for some time, it is currently unoccupied and given COVID shall remain so for a few months.

        The service charge was £20 per month more for her as it was rented. She wasn't happy but went along with it. She asked to have it dropped now that it is not rented...
        27-03-2020, 10:42 AM
      • Reply to Increased service charge when let/unoccupied
        by Macromia
        Unless the lease makes it clear that this "reasonable proportion" only applies to the service charges as a whole, it could be argued that flats with non-resident leaseholders could be charged a higher proportion of the managing agents fees - but only if they can justify this as reasonable,...
        29-03-2020, 03:13 AM
      • Reply to Rent Act restricting ground rent
        by Macromia
        So, presumably, the part of the clause that you have not quoted allows the ground rent at each new assignment to be set as a percentage of the sale price?

        This seems backwards to me (unless there is a more complicated formula used), because it means that the higher the sale price, the higher...
        29-03-2020, 02:46 AM
      • Rent Act restricting ground rent
        by Section20z
        One of my ground rent leases has a mechanism for the rent to rise on any assignment "......provided that such rent shall never exceed the amount which would bring this lease within the provisions of the Rent Act 1968 or any Act amending or re-enacting the same"
        The rent should be £650pa...
        27-03-2020, 09:44 AM
      • Reply to Increased service charge when let/unoccupied
        by eshroom
        The lease does indeed say charges should be split according to a "reasonable proportion" decided by managing agent or accountant in case of dispute.

        It does allow for a "reasonable fee to compensate time spent" for each sub-lease that has to be sent to the freeholder....
        28-03-2020, 21:59 PM
      • Damp issues on basement - 1995 conversion
        by eshroom
        We have failed tanking causing penetrative damp on my mum's small basement flat, converted from coal store.

        Freehold company claim tanking is an improvement and they have no record of ever having done the work, hence they say they are not responsible and won't be paying for the work....
        27-03-2020, 10:39 AM
      • Reply to Damp issues on basement - 1995 conversion
        by eshroom
        Thanks for the replies.

        Part of the damp (rising) has been identified as a faulty DPC. Part has been identified as failed tanking causing penetrative damp (earth on other side of wall). I don't know who put the tanking in, but as the coal store was converted by the freeholder in 1995, I...
        28-03-2020, 21:56 PM
      • Reply to Damp issues on basement - 1995 conversion
        by Stacker
        Tanking could be argued needs to be put in place to stop the external water coming in from the exterior walls which is partly the freeholder responsibility otherwise flat unfit for habitation act as not watertight....
        28-03-2020, 18:51 PM
      • Reply to Damp issues on basement - 1995 conversion
        by Stacker
        eshroom,

        Who put the tanking in? Normally you are responsible for the internal demise meaning plaster up to the brickwork. Where is damp coming from? Rising an or penetrative damp or both? You could argue that the damp is a structural issue, does your building have an existing DPC? check...
        28-03-2020, 18:48 PM
      • Reply to Pansies before people
        by D P Dance
        In normal times I would agree with you ram, but these are not normal times.
        28-03-2020, 16:19 PM
      Working...
      X